"She was saying something which is the absolute judicial equivalent of saying the sun rises each morning. It is not a controversial proposition at all that the overwhelming quantity of law making work in the federal system is done by the court of appeals... It is thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue."

Worth repeating.

Question for the judicial board when they talk to her:

"Please provide us a case where you established policy and your reasoning behind that decision. "

For legal experts, there's nothing controversial.

No. It is controversial. The Judicial branch does not create policy. To openly state, as a judge, that you create policy indicates that you do not honor the law nor the Constitution. It is a direct violation of the balances of power.

It's like a politician stating their vote is based on the contributions they receive from interested groups.

It is controversial to admit it.

It's not even controversial to admit it, and no, it's nothing like a politician stating their vote is based on contributions. For anyone who attended law school, there is nothing shocking to the notion that appellate judges consider policy argumenbts. You are in fact taught to make policy agruments from your first year of law school. It's common and shouldn't even raise an eyebrow. It's only controversial to those who have little exposure to the world of appellate practice.

Anyone notice that interpreting law, the job of an appeals judge, is akin to "making policy" only when a person is on the side of the losing argument. When they're on the winning side, they say it reinforces or clarifies longstanding jurisprudence.

This is called spin.

If the law doesn't exist, the court should not create it.

They are to rule on what exists - not fill in the blanks.

As I've stated, I'd like her to answer the question since she admits to creating policy.

"You are in fact taught to make policy agruments from your first year of law school"
I hope they are taught the differences between Article I, II, and III and their respective roles in government.

Laws are rarely specific (policy) which is why the feds issues thousands of pages of regulations (policy) to interpret and explain the law (policy).

There are often contradictions within all those regs, which the courts are asked to sort through (policy).

One way many cases are argued is on legal precedent: the policy already established by the courts.